Employers asking for FB passwords

[GreyhoundsRUs]

If employers cannot ask you about certain things like age, pregnancy, marital status, etc. how can they demand access to something that has a high potential to reveal all or most of these things?

I was thinking the same thing! I also am in moonlight's same boat with the PW

[MrsK]

Only employers of a certain size are prohibited from asking those things. Regardless, those are nosy questions that polite people avoid asking.

[diggitydot]

Any employer asking for this level of access to my personal life has system-wide boundary issues that stems straight from the top. I've worked for assholes like that and will NEVER again allow myself to be in that kind of dysfunctional situation. The paycheck isn't worth the headache.

Every single company I've worked for that was like this was a family-owned business. I avoid them like the plague, now.

[Auspicious]

Being able to tell a potential employer to eff off is a real luxury, and I hope I always have it. Looking forward to whenever unemployment is no longer 8+% and employers are less inclined to try this crap. I agree they're signaling loud and clear what a miserable place to work that would be.

[diggitydot]

I agree that being able to pick and choose jobs IS a luxury, but keeping my privacy is one of my priorities and it's worth it to me to find an employer who respects that priority.

[scrub-jay]

What if they asked for the passwords to this site? It isn't just my privacy here, it's the entire community.

[oceanchild]

We just went through a long debate here over banning employers from using credit reports in their hiring decisions. I find it fascinating how much some employers want to know. I feel like at some point you need to accept people as they present themselves to you, rather than assume everyone is a liar, y'know?

I also wonder, having done some hiring, how they have time to scrutinize their candidates so closely. Interviewing, reading writing samples and resumes, calling references... all takes a ton of time!

[Pollyanna]

I also wonder, having done some hiring, how they have time to scrutinize their candidates so closely. Interviewing, reading writing samples and resumes, calling references... all takes a ton of time!

I was wondering the same thing. Either the company has money to burn or doesn't know how to effectively allocate resources because it would cost a pretty penny to have someone monitor the social networking sites of all your employees.

In terms of taking the job I guess it would depend on the situation. If it was my only prospect and I needed the job I'd simply shut down my facebook.

[scrub-jay]

Now that I am on a computer:

Law introduced in Illinois: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...s-social-media

I think Maryland is also introducing a law prohibiting employers from requesting passwords.

[moonlight]

Considering I didn't even have to supply a reference for the job I decided to accept, I can't fathom a large corporation doing anything more than googling my name. My FB is as locked down as FB can be, but aside from that, you have to remember that the internet is forever and anything that is readily tied to your name is going to show up in a quick search. Same goes for your email address. Which is why I use multiple user names, multiple passwords, and multiple email accounts.

Congrats on the new job (I didn't know! sorry if that is late) Those are really good tips. I do use multiple email accounts. I can't imagine the email I would get if I had only on account.

[scarlett09]

For my current contract position, where I was hired by a corporate recruiter to work on a project for 6-8 weeks for a major company, I signed paperwork that stated that I authorized the recruiting company to do the following:

"to request and receive any information and records concerning me, including but not limited to consumer credit, criminal record history, worker's comp, driving, employment, military, civil and educational data and reports, from any individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, institutions, schools, governmental agencies and departments, courts, law enforcement and licensing agencies, consumer reporting agencies and other entities, including my present and previous employers"

That covers pretty much everything I've ever done in my life. I could have said "thanks but no thanks", but as Auspicious stated, I am not really in a position to turn a job down because the information they want from me doesn't jibe with my personal views on privacy. Yeah, I would walk if the questions or requested info violated state/fed laws, but I wouldn't walk if they wanted to check my pretty decent credit report and driving record. I need the money and the sanity of having a regular 8-5 position more than anything at the moment.

As for the whole FB password thing, FB isn't private. It is public. No matter how many privacy settings you put on it, it is still public, you are sharing with others beyond yourself. You gave up privacy the second you created the FB account, you no longer had any privacy. This is why DH and I firmly agree that limited, if any, information about our future little ones will be shared on FB. It is on the Internet and it will be there forever. Just like this post will be here until pigs have wings and fish walk on land.

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

Washington Post article on the topic: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...mWS_story.html

[GrayMatterWife]

I don't see anything unethical about a private company using what legal means are at its disposal to ensure that the people they are hiring are behaving in a way that is acceptable to the employer. Lots of contracts have morals clauses and lots of employers do extensive background checks. It's a heck of a lot less expensive (and thus better for the company, its shareholders and other employees) to weed out before hiring. You may feel like it's an "invasion of privacy"--but you are always welcome not to apply if those are not employment terms you can live with. This notion, as promoted by Sen Chuck Schumer, that you have a "right" to be free from this intrusion is laughable. There is no such right. Being a Facebook user is not a protected class.

That said, though, I do think it is a little pathetic that employers are doing this. Like I said before, itust be awful for moral and demoralizing for the employees. Employers already own you a minimum of 8 hours a day. You think you would not be accountable 24/7.

[SuzySunshine]

My thing is still giving them the actual password, I use passwords for multiple things and if I had to give someone my fb password I'd have to change several others. If they want to be my friend and see what I've posted, fine but I don't see why I should give them the password anymore then I would give them my e-mail password.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[poky]

I don't see anything unethical about a private company using what legal means are at its disposal to ensure that the people they are hiring are behaving in a way that is acceptable to the employer. Lots of contracts have morals clauses and lots of employers do extensive background checks. It's a heck of a lot less expensive (and thus better for the company, its shareholders and other employees) to weed out before hiring. You may feel like it's an "invasion of privacy"--but you are always welcome not to apply if those are not employment terms you can live with. This notion, as promoted by Sen Chuck Schumer, that you have a "right" to be free from this intrusion is laughable. There is no such right. Being a Facebook user is not a protected class.

That said, though, I do think it is a little pathetic that employers are doing this. Like I said before, itust be awful for moral and demoralizing for the employees. Employers already own you a minimum of 8 hours a day. You think you would not be accountable 24/7.

I agree. The question is, how much privacy invasion of employees SHOULD be legal? Asking about marital status or procreative status during the interview process didn't USED to be illegal, but now it is, right? The balance seems to be tipped in favor of employers at the moment because of the amount of unemployment, so they're able to push those boundaries, and doing everything they can that is technically legal...and maybe some of it shouldn't be. Law lags technology, after all. I can see an argument for this kind of thing for *some* jobs (the police force example they gave in the article, for one), but a normal, non-public desk job?